Accuracy of set dimensions in manufacturer's specs?

"UCLAN" wrote in message
...
L Alpert wrote:

Can their figures for the size of the set be trusted, or do I have
to roam the aisles of the stores with a tape measure in hand?
We're removing the computer equipment and turning the den back
into a
den, and I find that by judicious adjustment of shelves, I can
obtain a 27.5" high space in the builtins, which is enough for
many 40" LCD sets, if the manufacturer's specs can be trusted. The
space is 53" wide, so that's not an issue.

My Bravia's dimensions were spot on. They are within 0.1"-0.2" most
of the time.

That would be pretty darn close, not spot on.

The use of the words "most of the time" should have clued you in to
the
fact that being 'within 0.1"-0.2" most of the time' was in answer to
the
OP's question of "Can their figures for the size of the set be
trusted..."
I seriously doubt that my Bravia's dimensions change much from day
to day.

Yes, you are right, the dimensions won't change (as long as the room
temperature doesn't vary much), but within 0.1"-0.2", which is what
you said your Bravia dimensions were within, is still is not spot on
to the specified dimensions. Nor are most tape measures are graduated
in 0.1" increments, though one can get steel rulers that are
capabable.

On 21 Mar 2009 14:01:20 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

You may need to pay attention specs that include the stand (if you're
going to use it) and also be aware of recommended clearances. My
Panny had the measurements correct but I had to dig a little deeper to
find that they wanted 3" all the way around it

That's something I haven't seen in the "specifications" section on the
makers' Web sites; did you have to go into the manual to find that?


I didn't find that out untill I got the TV home. The info is in the
manual and that manual was online I just never found that little
tid-bit.
I build a cabinet front for the TV and had planned to use a wall mount
inside the cabinet. Luckily, using the stand moved the TV back back
far enough (behind the cabinet front) that the clearances were okay.
It all worked out in my situation but I can see where it could be a
problem.

Mike O.

L Alpert wrote:

Yes, you are right, the dimensions won't change (as long as the room
temperature doesn't vary much), but within 0.1"-0.2", which is what
you said your Bravia dimensions were within,

No, I said they were spot on. The 'within 0.1"-0.2"' statement was in
reference to the OP's "Can their figures for the size of the set be
trusted..." question.

"UCLAN" wrote in message
...
L Alpert wrote:

Yes, you are right, the dimensions won't change (as long as the
room temperature doesn't vary much), but within 0.1"-0.2", which is
what you said your Bravia dimensions were within,

No, I said they were spot on. The 'within 0.1"-0.2"' statement was
in
reference to the OP's "Can their figures for the size of the set be
trusted..." question.

I believe you said:

"My Bravia's dimensions were spot on. They are within 0.1"-0.2" most
of
the time."

Without defining exactly what or who "they" are, it can be interpreted
as your Bravia's dimensions, and that those that are not spot on are
within 0.1 to 0.2 of the specified dimensions.
If you are stating that all sets will be within these values of their
nominal, where did the numbers come from?

L Alpert wrote:

"...They are within 0.1"-0.2" most of the time."

Without defining exactly what or who "they" are, it can be interpreted
as your Bravia's dimensions, and that those that are not spot on are
within 0.1 to 0.2 of the specified dimensions.
If you are stating that all sets will be within these values of their
nominal, where did the numbers come from?

Again you must read more carefully. I clearly said "...most of time."
The numbers came from when I was shopping for a TV to fit in a 37.0"
wide cabinet. I read dimension specs on various web sites, then went
out and measured the sets myself. Obviously, I didn't measure *every*
set made, but the ones I *did* measure were with the '0.1"-0.2"' accuracy
range.

"UCLAN" wrote in message
...
L Alpert wrote:

"...They are within 0.1"-0.2" most of the time."

Without defining exactly what or who "they" are, it can be
interpreted as your Bravia's dimensions, and that those that are
not spot on are within 0.1 to 0.2 of the specified dimensions.
If you are stating that all sets will be within these values of
their nominal, where did the numbers come from?

Again you must read more carefully. I clearly said "...most of
time."
The numbers came from when I was shopping for a TV to fit in a 37.0"
wide cabinet. I read dimension specs on various web sites, then went
out and measured the sets myself. Obviously, I didn't measure
*every*
set made, but the ones I *did* measure were with the '0.1"-0.2"'
accuracy
range.

So most of the ones you measured were within that range, not most in
general.

L Alpert wrote:

Obviously, I didn't measure *every* set made, but the ones I *did* measure
were with the '0.1"-0.2"' accuracy range.

So most of the ones you measured were within that range, not most in
general.

Man, you gotta work on your reading skills. I said 'but the ones I *did*
measure were with the '0.1"-0.2"' accuracy range' not '*most of* the ones
I *did* measure were with the '0.1"-0.2"' accuracy range.' *Obviously* I can't
claim the ones I *didn't* measure were in that range, but it seems unlikely
that I somehow chose the only ones that met spec. I'm beginning to suspect
that you are being deliberately obtuse.

"UCLAN" wrote in message
...
L Alpert wrote:

Obviously, I didn't measure *every* set made, but the ones I *did*
measure
were with the '0.1"-0.2"' accuracy range.

So most of the ones you measured were within that range, not most
in general.

Man, you gotta work on your reading skills. I said 'but the ones I
*did*
measure were with the '0.1"-0.2"' accuracy range' not '*most of* the
ones
I *did* measure were with the '0.1"-0.2"' accuracy range.'
*Obviously* I can't
claim the ones I *didn't* measure were in that range, but it seems
unlikely
that I somehow chose the only ones that met spec. I'm beginning to
suspect
that you are being deliberately obtuse.

Actually, you need to work on your communications skills.

Once again, "My Bravia's dimensions were spot on. They are within
0.1"-0.2" most of the time." So, does that mean.....

a. Your Bravia was spot on, or "they" (being the dimensions) were
within 0.1 to 0.2
b. or is it "they" (generally all dimensions) are within 0.1 to 0.2
c. "they" are the ones you actually measured and were within 0.1 to
0.2 (even though it is highly unlikely that you had a tape measure
that had 0.1 increments).

There could be different meanings depending on how what you stated is
interpreted, and one is not the same as the other. As far as being
deliberately obtuse, yes, just giving you a dose of your own medicine.

L Alpert wrote:

Obviously, I didn't measure *every* set made, but the ones I *did*
measure were with the '0.1"-0.2"' accuracy range.

So most of the ones you measured were within that range, not most
in general.

Man, you gotta work on your reading skills. I said 'but the ones I
*did* measure were with the '0.1"-0.2"' accuracy range' not '*most of*
the ones I *did* measure were with the '0.1"-0.2"' accuracy range.'
*Obviously* I can't claim the ones I *didn't* measure were in that range,
but it seems unlikely that I somehow chose the only ones that met spec.
I'm beginning to suspect that you are being deliberately obtuse.

Actually, you need to work on your communications skills.

Really? What part of the above don't you understand? You added the word
"most" to what I stated. Clear enough for you? I said the ones I measured
were within the 0.1"-0.2" range, to which you replied "So most of the ones
you measured were within that range..." No, I didn't say "most were." Geez...

Once again, "My Bravia's dimensions were spot on. They are within
0.1"-0.2" most of the time." So, does that mean.....

It means that my Bravia's dimensions were spot on, and - in reply to the OP's
question about dimension specifications in general - I said they are within
0.1"-0.2" most of the time. [Yes, in that sentence I *did* say most.]

(even though it is highly unlikely that you had a tape measure
that had 0.1 increments).

I can see you don't have an engineering background. I have THREE measuring
devices with 0.1" increments. No, they're not made by "Stanley."

"UCLAN" wrote in message
...
L Alpert wrote:

Obviously, I didn't measure *every* set made, but the ones I
*did*
measure were with the '0.1"-0.2"' accuracy range.

So most of the ones you measured were within that range, not most
in general.

Man, you gotta work on your reading skills. I said 'but the ones I
*did* measure were with the '0.1"-0.2"' accuracy range' not '*most
of*
the ones I *did* measure were with the '0.1"-0.2"' accuracy range.'
*Obviously* I can't claim the ones I *didn't* measure were in that
range,
but it seems unlikely that I somehow chose the only ones that met
spec.
I'm beginning to suspect that you are being deliberately obtuse.

Actually, you need to work on your communications skills.

Really? What part of the above don't you understand? You added the
word
"most" to what I stated. Clear enough for you? I said the ones I
measured
were within the 0.1"-0.2" range, to which you replied "So most of
the ones
you measured were within that range..." No, I didn't say "most
were." Geez...

Once again, "My Bravia's dimensions were spot on. They are within
0.1"-0.2" most of the time." So, does that mean.....

It means that my Bravia's dimensions were spot on, and - in reply to
the OP's
question about dimension specifications in general - I said they are
within
0.1"-0.2" most of the time. [Yes, in that sentence I *did* say
most.]


The choices you decided to edit out of the text for what ever
reason...

This is how what you said ("My Bravia's dimensions were spot on. They
are within
0.1"-0.2" most of the time." ) could be interpreted...

a. Your Bravia was spot on, or "they" (being the dimensions) were
within 0.1 to 0.2
b. or is it "they" (generally all dimensions) are within 0.1 to 0.2
c. "they" are the ones you actually measured and were within 0.1 to
0.2 (even though it is highly unlikely that you had a tape measure
that had 0.1 increments).

(even though it is highly unlikely that you had a tape measure that
had 0.1 increments).

I can see you don't have an engineering background. I have THREE
measuring
devices with 0.1" increments. No, they're not made by "Stanley."

Then I applaud that you actually have devices that have a superior
resolution that probably would put you in the top 3 percentile of all
carpenters.

I actually have an extensive engineering background (I'm sure you know
how engineers feel about ass-u-mptions), and tools measuring in
increments of 1/10 of inch are actually quite coarse in my business.

Clarity and good engineering acumen are not one and the same, some day
you may learn that. There is no sense in continuing this thread, as
it seems you have not yet progressed past the self indulgent stage of
your career.